DIRECT 

LEGISLATION 


THE 

Initiative and Referendum 

BY 


John Z. White 

■/ 


Reprinted from the PUBLIC. January 8 1908. 
Price 5 Cents _ > 

_ > y.r: 


H. H. TIMBY 

Publisher, Bookseller, Importer. 
CONNEAUT, OHIO. 





















iUN 4 1913 



PRICE OF THIS PAMPHLET: 

Single copy,.5 cents, postpaid. 

One doeeh copies, . . 40 "cents, postpaid. 

100 copies.$2.25, postpaid. 

, Special price for 1,000 or over. 






4 


o 


41 



% • 



% 






X 


f 


% 



I 


• I 


\ 


♦ 






i 



- \ 





9 





M 


r 



i 



» * 

* 

4 ' 


t 


I 


lA 


I 




■i 

•'* - * \ ' -r^ 




0 



If the people of a city, State or the nation, are in truth to 
be self-governing it seems inevitably to follow that they must 
have at hand the means of making the government to their 
bidding. The people of the city of Chicago, for instance, voted 
in favor of public ownership of their street car system, but their 
board of aldermen were able to thwart the popular desire. The 
people of Philadelphia, and many other places, have repeatedly 
found themselves unable to achieve their wish. To many, self- 
government has for such reason come to be looked upon as an 
irridescerit dream. 

This pessimistic view arises from the fact that we are pos¬ 
sessed of but part of the necessary machinery of self-govern¬ 
ment. We are like an engineer who has all essentials save 
the governor. His engine will go,” but its action is beyond 
orderly control. 

The initiative and referendum, taken together, are called 
direct legislation. That is, just as in any deliberative body, if 
the usual machinery does not produce desired results, the body 
can act directly. So, if our city or other government does not 
act rightly, the body of the people, when possessed of the 
machinery of direct legislation, can act, or legislate, directly. 
Without this power they are not really self-governing. 

The Initiative. 

It is proposed, therefore, to give to a certain percentage of 
the qualified voters in any political body the power to prepare 
and present petitions for proposed laws to the whole body of 
voters. This is the exact equivalent of a motion in any club 
or society, save that a considerable number of “ seconds ” is 
required. That is, each signer of the petition really “ seconds ” 
the motion to adopt the matter proposed in the petition. Such 
action is the initiative. 

It is sometimes said that the people need only to elect offi¬ 
cials favorable to desired laws, and that thereby all need for 


the device known as the initiative will vanish. The fallacy in 
this position comes from the fact that our officials have many 
duties. An officer may be highly esteemed and very satisfac¬ 
tory in nearly all relations, but at the same time be quite at 
variance with the people on some question held by them to be 
important. Why shall we maintain a system that either deprives 
us of the efficient officer, or of a measure that we believe to be 
expedient? 

An officer was elected by a majority of two to one, although 
he declared himself opposed to a policy that the same con¬ 
stituency favored by a vote of three to one. The opposing candi¬ 
date, meanwhile, had declared in favor of this policy. The 
explanation is simple. Other issues were, in the opinion of the 
voters, sufficiently important to force this matter into the back¬ 
ground. If possessed of the power to initiate legislation, the 
voters could have enjoyed the services of the officer they de¬ 
sired, and also secured the adoption of the policy they preferred. 
They were, in fact, but partly self-governing. 


The Referendum. 

It is also proposed that the people shall have-power, ex¬ 
pressed by petition, as explained in the above reference to the 
initiative, to promptly propose the defeat of acts of legislation 
deemed by them to be unwise. If a measure has been enacted 
by the legislature, a petition may be prepared within a stated 
time (perhaps 90 days) and signed by the given percentage of 
qualified voters, whereupon it shall be submitted to the people 
for adoption or rejection. This is exactly equivalent to “ an 
appeal from the chair.” The matter may be placed before the 
people at a special election or at the next general election. 

It is sometimes urged that under such a plan the people 
would be voting all the time and on all manner of questions. In 
fact, the referendum, where adopted, is seldom resorted to. 


Legislators are careful when they know the people can reverse 
their doings; and, very much more important, lobbyists are not 
inclined to use their peculiar powers of persuasion on members 
of legislative bodies when they know there are watchful citizens 
intent upon the defeat of their nefarious schemes, and with 
full power to defeat them if the people so will. 

Legislators are usually elected for two years, and the people, 
who are the principals, have no control of their agents save by 
criminal or impeachment proceedings—and constitutional guar¬ 
anties, which are subject to court interpretation. Would any 
rational business man give to an agent or agents complete 
control—equal to an irrevocable power of attorney—of his es¬ 
tablishment for two years? If he continued this practice, with 
no power save to change his attorney every two years, how 
long would his establishment continue to be his property ? 

The referendum will not only cure legislative rascality, but 
in even greater degree will operate as a preventive. Would a rail¬ 
road corporation bribe a legislative body to enact injurious 
monopoly laws if it knew the people would in all probability 
rescind such act within a few weeks or months? It would not 
pay. The corporation would merely lose the money spent to 
secure legislative privileges. 

Legislative Obstruction. 

With the initiative and referendum the will of the people 
cannot be thwarted by indirect methods. In the legislature, 
“ pigeonholing ” and obscure amendments frequently divert or 
even reverse the effect of a law as first introduced. A bill, on 
being presented to the legislature, is referred to a committee. 
LTnless those interested in its adoption are sufficiently powerful 
to overcome any opposition that may appear, the bill is never 
heard of again—it is “ pigeonholed.” 

If forced from the committee, and its enemies cannot out¬ 
vote its friends, it may be placed so far down on the list of bills 


that the day of adjournment arrives before it is acted upon. 
Failing to stop the bill by these methods, amendments are pro¬ 
posed, and it often happens that a iew members are (or profess 
to be) convinced the amendments are desirable, when in fact 
they render the whole bill useless. 

If the bill finally gets through one house, it must travel 
the same course in the other. Failure of the, two houses to 
agree often leads to a conference committee from both—with, of 
course, another opening for clever minds. 

After all this the bill may still be vetoed. Later still it 
must run the gauntlet of the courts. 

All of these indirect methods of obstruction are avoided by 
the initiative and referendum. A bill properly signed and filed 
goes to the people without obstruction. The people either adopt 
or reject. All opportunity to deceive or poison is eliminated. 

Direct legislation is merely the application to our public 
affairs of those methods that experience has shown best suited 
to attain the end desired. That end is self-government. Do 
we want self-government? It sometimes seems problematical. 
Capable men who oppose direct legislation can explain their 
attitude only on the ground that the people, in their judgment, 
are not capable of managing their own affairs. Such men are 
tories. They have no proper place in the American scheme of 
government. 

If it be held that we have in fact conducted this govern- 
men for above a century without direct legislation and that we 
may safely continue “ in the path our fathers trod,” we would 
call attention to the fact that in nothing else are we satisfied 
with the ways of our fathers. They used the ox cart—we don’t. 
Just as we have improved on our father’s mechanical appliances, 
without violence to the principles of mechanics, so it may be 
possible to improve on governmental machinery without in any 
way altering the correct principles of government which we 
inherit. 


The principle of the first locomotive is identical with that 
of the last. The changes have all been in the elimination of 
defective methods in detail, to the end that the essential prin¬ 
ciple involved might be more fully realized. Why is it not 
the part of wisdom to eliminate like defective details in the 
machinery of our government? 

Again, when we remember that for the first time in history 
self-government on a large scale is attempted in America is it 
at all surprising that the machinery first installed is defective 
in detail? Would it not be profoundly astonishing if that ma¬ 
chinery were not defective? 


Two Theories of Representation. 

There are two theories of representative government. One 
is that we elect superior men to legislative office, whose func¬ 
tion is to enact laws, for the regulation of our industrial and 
police afifairs. The other theory is that we elect representatives 
to legislate in obedience to our wishes, to the end that the people 
shall rule themselves. Each theory has found support in the 
thought and practice of the people of the United States. In 
the beginning State constitutions were short, being usually 
merely a statement of the bill of rights and accepted constitu¬ 
tional principles. Legislative authority thus but slightly checked 
became aggressive. Endeavoring to hold the activities of their 
representatives within proper bounds, the people amended the 
State constitutions, and quite generally called conventions to 
draft new constitutions. This practice was repeated until these 
State charters have grown from 1,000 or 1,500 words to the latest 
—that of Oklahoma—which is about 60,000 words in length. 
This whole procedure is evidence of the persistency with which 
the people struggle for genuine self-government. For more than 
one hundred years they have struggled to bring their legislatures 
into subjection. The means adopted has been a large increase 


of constitutional limitations. But in addition an increasing num¬ 
ber of matters have been made to depend directly on the political 
action of the people themselves. In most States constitutional 
provisions are referred to popular vote. In many the people 
vote directly on loaning public credit, expenditure of money, 
city charters, granting franchises, methods and rates of taxa¬ 
tion, subdivision of counties, organization of townships, high¬ 
way control, public aid to private enterprise, Sunday closing, 
local option, civil service, direct primaries, and many other 
matters. 

Direct legislation is the principle underlying this latter move¬ 
ment. It is in fact, safe guarding liberty by means of live men, 
rather than by dead forms. 


Representative Government Not a Failure. 

We are supposed to possess popular self-government. But 
in fact the hindrances to its realization are so many as to cause 
a considerable percentage of our voters to despair. Capable men, 
who are earnest in their studies and in their efforts to im¬ 
prove existing conditions, are heard to declare that representa¬ 
tive government has proved a failure. That these men are 
hasty is no doubt true; but, on the other hand, the evidence of 
seemingly almost fatal defects in our governmental machinery 
is overwhelming. 

Why was it necessary to battle so many years in order to 
secure the interstate commerce commission? Was it not because 
the people had no means by which they could directly express 
themselves on that one question? The people must express 
themselves through representatives, and these have many duties, 
to engage their attention. 

The resulting situation is that the representatives are not 
under positive command to do any one particular thing—are not 
even certain as to the desires of their constituencies. These 


conditions inevitably give to political machines a controlling 
power, that, among a truly self-governing people, should reside 
with the voters alone. We have no reason whatever to despair 
of popular self-government until it shall first have had full and 
adequate trial under the most favorable circumstances, or in 
conditions giving the people every opportunity, when in their 
judgment the need arises, to completly control governmental 
action. 

The intent of our governmental structure is right. Its de¬ 
fects are wholly in the details of administration. These are 
not of uncertain or indefinite character, but easily perceived, and 
as easily understood. So long as city or state legislative bodies 
may grant a privilege in highways—commonly known as a right- 
of-way—and the courts continue to declare such grant to be a 
contract, thus placing it beyond the reach of sovereign States, 
the people are helpless, unless we secure possession of the ma¬ 
chinery for direct legislation. 

Why should any man who believes in popular self-govern¬ 
ment hesitate to claim the right to review legislative action. 
Does he not know what he desires the legislature or the city 
council to do? If he does not, why does he vote? 

Let us then recognize the very evident fact that the ma¬ 
chinery originally installed for the realization of popular self- 
government is in some respects insufficient for the intended 
purpose. Let us observe that this insufficiency has been fully 
overcome by the commonly known and plainly correct methods 
of customary parliamentary law. 

Having arrived at a clear knowledge of the simple remedy 
for the difficulty, let us demand that it be applied—and at once. 
W e demand the initiative, that we may carry our will into efifect 
when legislative bodies fail or refuse to act. We demand the 
referendum, that we may resist legislative action when contrary 
to the popular will. 


In other words, we demand the continuance of representa¬ 
tive government with optional direct legislation. We want rep¬ 
resentative government as a mere matter of convenience—but 
demand direct legislation as our natural and inalienable right.- 


The Missouri Law. 

At the recent election the people of Missouri adopted the 
initiative and referendum by inserting the following clause in 
their constitution: 

The Legislative authority of the State shall be vested in a Legis¬ 
lative Assembly, consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives, 
but the people reserve to themselves power to propose laws and 
amendments to the Constitution, and to enact or reject the same at 
the polls, independent of the Legislative Assembly, and also reserve 
power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act 
of the Legislative Assembly. 

The first power reserved by the people is the Initiative, and not 
more than eight per cent of the legal voters in each of at least two- 
thirds of the Congressional districts in the State shall be required to 
propose any measure by such petition, and every such petition shall 
include the full text of the measure so proposed. Initiative petitions 
shall be filed with the Secretary of State not less than four months 
before the election at which they are to be voted upon. 

The second power is the Referendum, and it may be ordered (except 
as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public 
peace, health, or safety, and laws making appropriations for the cur¬ 
rent expenses of the State government, for the maintenance of the 
State institutions and for the support of the public schools) either by 
the petition signed by five per cent of the legal voters in each of at 
least two-thirds of the .Congressional districts in the state, or by the 
Legislative Assembly, as other bills are enacted. Referendum petitions 
shall be filed with the Secretary of State not more than ninety days 
after the final adjournment of the session of the Legislative Assembly 
which passed the bill on which the referendum is demanded. 

The veto power of the governor shall not extend to measures 
referred to the people. 

All elections on measures referred to the people of the state shall 
be had at the biennial regular general elections, except when the Legisla¬ 
tive Assembly shall order a special election. 

Any measure referred to the people shall take effect and become 
the law when it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, 
and not otherwise. The style of all bills shall be: “Be it enacted by 
the people of the State of Missouri.” 


This section shall not be construed to deprive any member of the 
Legislative Assembly of the right to introduce any measure. 

The whole number of votes cast for Justice of the Supreme Court 
at the regular election last preceding the filing of any petition for the 
Initiative, or for the Referendum, shall be the basis on which the 
number of legal voters necessary to sign such petition shall be counted. 
Petitions and orders for the Initiative and for the Referendum shall be 
filed with the Secretary of State, and in submitting the same to the 
people he, and all other officers, shall be guided by the general laws 
and the act submitting this amendment, until legislation shall be espe¬ 
cially provided therefor. 


The People Act With Moderation. 

The acts of the people with the machinery of direct legisla¬ 
tion will compare very favorably with the activities of legis¬ 
latures, as is shown by the following list of measures adopted 
during the last three elections by the people of Oregon: 

On June 3, 1902, the initiative and referendum were added to the 
constitution of the State of Oregon, by a favorable vote of 62,024 for 
and 5,668 in opposition. The total vote for officers at the same election 
was 92,920. Thus a trifle over 72 per cent of the total vote was cast 
on the amendment. 

Two years later, 1904, two laws were submitted under the pro¬ 
visions of the new amendment. One was for the direct nominations 
of officers by the people, and it was adopted by a vote of 56,205 to 
16,354. The other law was for local option in opposition to the liquor 
interests. The temperance people were successful by a vote of 43,316 to 
40,198. The total vote was 99,315, giving slightly over 84 per cent as 
the vote on the temperance measure. 

In 1906 eleven laws were submitted to the people. The vote on 
equal suffrage was over 84 per cent of the total, and the measure was 
lost by 36,902 to 47,075. This proposal carried in 10 counties, and 
lost in 23. 

The liquor interest attempted to reverse the temperance vote of 
1904, but suffered a more emphatic defeat in a vote of 35,297 to 45,144. 

A third proposal was to sell an old road to the State (under the 
popular cry of public ownership), but an adverse vote of 44,527 to 
31,525 defeated the scheme. 

An appropriation by the legislature was held up by referendum 
petition, but the people sustained the legislature by a vote of 43,918 to 
26,758. 

An amendment of the constitution to enlarge the scope of the 
initiative and referendum was adopted by 47,661 to 18,751. This carried 
in every county, as did the six following measures: 


A constitutional amendment giving cities and towns power to 
enact and amend their charters subject to the State constitution, adopted 
by a vote of 52,567 to 19,852. 

A constitutional amendment for the initiative and referendum on 
local, special and municipal laws, by a vote of 47,678 to 16,735. 

A constitutional amendment allowing the State printing and bind¬ 
ing to be regulated by law by 63,749 to 9,571. 

A law prohibiting free passes and discrimination by railroad com¬ 
panies and other public service corporations, by 57,281 to 16,779. 

An act requiring sleeping car, refrigerator car, and oil companies 
to pay an annual license upon gross earnings, by 69,635 to 6,441. 

An act requiring express, telegraph and telephone companies to 
pay an annual license upon gross earnings, by 70,872 to 6,300. 

On June 1, 1908, nineteen proposals were submitted, in Oregon. 
Four of these were referred to the people by the legislature; four were 
ordered by referendum petition, and eleven by initiative petition. Of 
the whole, seven were defeated and twelve adopted. 

The total vote cast at this election was 116,614. The largest vote 
cast on any of the nineteen proposals was 95,528; the smallest 70,726. 

The four matters referred by the legislature to the people were: 

xA.n amendment allowing state institutions to be erected elsewhere 
than at the seat of government, adopted by 41,975 to 40,868. 

An amendment changing time of holding election from first Mon¬ 
day in June to first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, adopted 
by 65,728 to 18,590. 

An amendment allowing increased compensation to members of 
the legislature, defeated by 68,892 to 19,691. 

The four matters ordered by referendum petitions were: 

An amendment to increase numbers of members of supreme court, 
defeated by 50,591 to 30,243. 

An act giving sheriff the right to feed prisoners at a per diem 
rate, adopted by 60,443 to 30,033. 

An act requiring railroads and other common carriers to furnish 
free transportation to certain state and county officials, defeated by 
59,406 to 28,856. 

An act appropriating $25,000 annually for four years for State 
armories, defeated by 54,848 to 33,507. 

The eleven measures proposed by initiative petitions were: 

An act protecting salmon and sturgeon during certain seasons and 
from traps, adopted by 46,582 to 40,720. 

An act protecting salmon and sturgeon from gill nets in parts 
of the Columbia river and tributaries, adopted by 56,130 to 30,280. 

An amendment permitting the “ Recall ” after six months in office, 
adopted by 58,381 to 31,002. 

A law directing legislators to follow the popular choice for United 
States senator, adopted by 69,668 to 21,162. 


An amendment permitting proportional representation, adopted by 
48,868 to 34,128. 

A law against corrupt practices and limiting election expenditures, 
adopted by 54,042 to 31,301. 

A law preventing criminal trial save upon grand jury indictment, 
adopted by 52,214 to 28,487. 

A law creating the new county of Hood River, adopted by 43,948 
to 26,778. 

An amendment to give equal suffrage defeated by 58,670 to 36,858. 

An amendment to allow towns to regulate liquor trade, defeated 
by 52,346 to 39,442. 

An amendment exempting certain forms of property from taxation, 
defeated by 60,871 to 32,066. This measure was urged by the single 
taxers. 


A Conservative Approval. 

Justice David Brewer said in his New York address: 

“ The two supreme dangers that menace a democratic State 
are despotism on the one hand and mob rule on the other. 

The more constant and universal the voice of the people makes 
itself manifest, the nearer do we approach to an ideal govern¬ 
ment. The initiative and referendum make public opinion the 
controlling factor in the government. The more promptly and 
the more fully public officers carry into effect such public 
opinion, the more truly is government of the people realized.” 

Tories everywhere oppose the rule of the plain people. The 
claim is set up that they are incompetent. So said Charles I, 
so said Louis XVI. .So say all tories today. And yet the world’s 
history bluntly tells the story of meanness, misery and fraud 
wherever power has been placed with the few, while peace, 
good will and joy have ever attended those peoples whose gov¬ 
ernments were equally participated in by all. 


JOHN Z. WHITE. 


The New Library Edition ot the Complete 


Works of Henry George 

Including the 

LIFE OF HENRY GEORGE 

By Henry George, Jr. 


Recently published, in ten volumes, 12mo. handsomely bound in buckram,with gilt 
tops. It contains a full set of portraits, and is in all respects equal to the well known 
MEMORIAL EDITION, issued in 1898, which sold for $25.00 per set, but is now out of 
prmt. 


LIST OF VOLUMES 


Volume 1 
Volume II 
Volume III 
Volume IV 
Volume V 
Volumes VI and VII 
Volume VIII 
Volumes IX and X 


Progress and Poverty 

Social Problems 

The Land Question 

Protection or Free Trade 

A Perplexed Philosopher 

The Science of Political Economy 

Our Land and Land Policy 

The Life of Henry George 


$15.00 Net Reduced to $8.75 


The Popular Edition of Henry George’s Works can be 
supplied in the following titles. 

Progress and Poverty 
Social Problems 
The Land Question 
Protection or Free Trade 
A Perplexed Philosopher 

Each, 12mo, Cloth $1.00, Paper 50c. 

For Sale by H. H. TIMBY, Conneaut, O. 




THE PUBLIC 

LOUIS F. POST.Editor 


A Journal of Fundamental Democracy and a Weekly 
Narrative of History in the Making. 

Searching and fearless editorial discusSon of present affairs in 
the spirit of that clause of the Declaration of Independence which 
declares that “all men are created equal.” 

SUBSCRIPTIONS $1.00 Per Year 


The Confessions of a Monopolist 

By FREDERIC C. HOWE, Ph.D. 

Author of “The City the Hope of Democracy” 

A candid story of the career of a strong American 
character of to-day. It is a remarkable story of American 
business and finance; the story of something for nothing-of 
making the other fellow pay. 

The deadliest, text-book of practical politics that ever was printed. It is the story of the men of affairs in 

your own city, ward and precinct, of the sucesses who simply rob the community by taking toll of its life its in¬ 
crease, its activities.—St. Louis Mirror. 

12mo, cloth, 170 pages, $1.00., Reduced to 75c 

Bolton HalPs Recent Books 

A Little Land and a Living, 286 Pages, $1,00 Postpaid. 
Three Acres and Liberty, ’435 Pages, 75c Postpaid. 

For Sale by H. H. TIMBY, Conneaut, O. 






k 9 


V . s 


/• 


* ^ * 


/ 


% 

f. 


J 

■N 


. I 


• if k 


\ 


"v 

■' t 


*» • V 


■ f 




, »■ 


1 _ 


*% . 


■•' «.▼ ' «.- ^ 


x*: • 




‘ -* 


' ■ V '• •••. / >>: 


••V. 






.>i . • ’ . 

: r' V. V 




» •' 


* •*K 


V* •* 


•s 




V .; 


1 .« 

• i 


i*. 





< . •- /'•.• • -. ^ 

. < -i-«w 


‘ - 


i -*9\ 

t vtC 


. 1/ «. .fi •' *- i > 


': ;,■ -Ar. r 


. •* • 


*,• M ■ 

'•- ' * 


< • • t. 




V. ’.r^' 










*' 

v\ -• 


,j. r ^|•^^',' 

■ e^c' ■>, ■ 


^ a 


•a t 


. > *#. 






\ 

% * 


‘ *' ” -JP: 

. -lA 

‘ - SN • 


» 

Is 

. ’ 

. ^9 • 

'' T-- • 

- ’'A' 







c'^.y • 


'■• .■ . 

/•, '{ 


»r 

. 




f - 

j * 


' - t 




i 

4> *' 


.1 


•f 



, - •' .*-*, \J' 

•i - Vi*. i.‘-'T 


, / 




■' / 


, ••- • * '4.- /■- 

:i,.. j- ‘".V 


V 


- / 




■ #■ 


^ . 


^ • % '» 

1 .- 


* ; 
< 1 


•v^ 


'• 

• ’••«. >• • L -■ ' 


-A 

’ s'-M. 


^ ’.5 'V ■ ' •'• 

Ji'A Kr’ V'-' ' ' . 


;f 


fc.’ 
• N. 


>• 




;l. 


/ 



.■x^' 
*•' *■ 


. i. •**■ 





'.'." \ 

N ' 

, ' r . 

* 


<» 


'■ ■» ■% 


/ 




• r' 

. I * 


*• 

* » ‘ ■ 


•• '» 

I 

J 


\ 


py^-l^'y ' 

■•'« • '^ •, > -• •, v. 

. ' -A J, •- •^r--.v,- « 

H *•■*•• • * 1 • . ^ 

•■■-•• ■ 'v - ‘vf?,: 

-'■' fi. 

- ,:. ' ■^.' .'■;, 1 ; 


¥ .. .' '%:■• 
t ■' ■ ■ ^ " 

•i. » / * 


' ♦> 

A * 




•, 


<; 


/ 


, f % * , 

,. • . .* *i,* 




's'-m 


. • ';■■ 

- :'-■ < '■ ’ 

' - ,> • • '■ .'■. 






Cr • 


» 




•4 






' ^ # 

V 

\ . i 

A 

• • 


.; ^ - 

< 


.•'''V'v 




^v- /' ■ v*'' ' 

-■'-' ■- ■■ ■ ' ’■ V: • ^ ■■"’< 

‘'—t A ' *“ ■'» 1 

^1 J . *, , • ■ ,*, '‘''‘‘•v V , ■» * ' .. • S J 

^ ^ T A •« n 




•K 'v-;' 

K ,. 4‘. 

' t • I 

u- 


1 


• ^ 


V V » 

• • 5- '«r, 


r.-gr-M —. - f '. • .,- • 

£w '■ V ^ • T'Wr-'-'y \ 


^ & 


i»- ' ,*t*< 


/ 


.:i w • 


.r 


i 


•V • 


f- ' 


frV, 


r./ : 

y 

v- f .\ J -.s 


^/ . 


./ . * N .^. %, >• 

• N » * 


»■ 




.• '-:•- 


'•* ^ - 


• 1 .••, 


•^. v A' 


/. A 






r 


. • *• 

• r* 

'i 


f 

'•.1 t . 


• -?.‘ . ■ 






f • i 






(. 


• » 


'/ 

t 


■- * >-. 

.> 




V* 




■ f*-- 


, <. 


• •. 


.•■' 




^ V 


* '\^‘ 

‘ >• 


■ '/ .r ‘. • •• •■ -• •■' 

»» ’’,^. ' ^ 'r. 

•' 1.’' ! •. M- •"! *. 

A 1 • . ' ■; 


' • K:- , A v , ■ . 

' ,\W. . 




" A' Vy -ii 

I ' • •^_ • ► - 


) •« 


». • 


<■- '*'. . 

V* ‘ 




( t 

* K 


• ►" I 

•^ »' * • ^ 

. \ \ 


'<•> ' \ \ 
. „ =i*r 


:a-- 


,. • , .r'•••''-r f ■ 

rV/■«.♦■• V -■'. V ,;.. 

J; </.. , V.v _ ■' , f r> •*' ■. '•• ■ 4- ,-X "r 

*'V 'f ^ a:1f . '*. T..' 


■ ‘V-' 


I 4 




, ■ f 


I . ^ ^ ' M 



* 




-1 




■K. 


' -'' 'i: 


. -.4{^y 
.r^jr 

• ^ ' 'jL^ 




LIBRARY OF CONGRFfiR 




;t- * • 


'S 


0 019 308 973 2 



y '. • 

^ f . 









-A .>••■•• ’. ' 



SI'- 

v^vVr-*' ... 


^ -J' 









